East Riding of Yorkshire Council appeal evidence
Refused over highway safety in East Riding of Yorkshire?
Learn which local access and gate problems prompted highway-safety objections, and which facts to test against your refusal.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 7 of 98
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 0
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 7
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 4
- of 7 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: East Riding of Yorkshire LPA (53.868167, −0.482526). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
East Riding of Yorkshire Council appeal findings
Why East Riding access schemes raised safety risks
The matched local set has no allowed appeal, so the selected examples show concerns but no successful local comparison.
Counted against appeals
East Riding access safety objections
Access use exceeded a safe point
For the proposed dwelling, the Inspector judged that extra use of the access would pass the acceptable safety point; passing places would not overcome the additional risk.
Front gates raised an access concern
The fence and gates were found detrimental to highway safety, and the evidence did not make clear access and exit when the front parking spaces were occupied.
Vehicular access was unacceptable
The Inspector concluded that the proposed vehicular access would have an unacceptable effect on highway safety.
No allowed example matched
No allowed local example
This snapshot has no allowed local example for this issue.
Evidence that access use stays safe
The dismissed dwelling extract indicates that a proposal still needed to show its added access use would remain within an acceptable safety level.
Evidence on leaving a full driveway
The gates-and-fence extract left the effect on access and exit unclear when all front parking spaces were occupied.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does your refusal say access use would exceed a safe level?
- Can you show vehicles enter and exit safely with full parking?
- Does your evidence address safe access for all users?
Appeal 87895 also covered character and appearance, so this review uses only its highway-safety extract. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Read the reasoning in matched appeal decisions
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Dismissed appeal examples
5 examples
10 November 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the construction of a vehicular access.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon highway safety.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would have an unacceptable effect on highway safety. Conflict is thus found with Policy ENV1 (B.12) of the LP, as set out above. It would also fail to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework, which seeks to achieve safe access for all and prioritises pedestrian movement within the transport hierarchy.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
12 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
installation of a communication kiosk with integrated defibrillator and advertisement display.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in both appeals is the effect of the proposals upon public safety with particular regard to highway safety. Appeal Decisions 6002742 and APP/E2001/Z/25/3376850
Paragraph 4 · Source pages 1, 2
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons given, I conclude that for Appeal A the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to highway safety. Therefore, it would conflict with Policy ENV1 of the East Riding Local Plan Strategy [name] 2025 which requires development to ensure no unacceptable impact on existing uses in the surrounding area, and to promote equality of safe movement for all, including access and minimising highway safety risks.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 3
27 April 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
pedestrian gate, double drive gate and fence measuring 1.8 metres tall and a total length of 7 metres at the front of property.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the gates and fence on the character and appearance of the area and on highway safety.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The fence and gates therefore have a detrimental impact on highway safety. The scheme subsequently further conflicts with Policy ENV1 of the LP which amongst other things states that development will be supported where it achieves a high quality of design including by minimising highway safety risks. There would again be conflict with the DC. I have not found direct conflict with Policy EC4 of the LP and the effect of the proposal on access and egress if all parking spaces in the front garden were occupied are not clear from the evidence before me. 1 [name] – April 2025 – [name] of Yorkshire Council p111.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 2
31 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
erection of a single self / custom build dwelling house within the curtilage of Orchard Green, 37 [site address] .
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are: • The effect of the proposed access on highway safety, with regard to the proposed visibility splay and access arrangements onto the B1230 ([name]); and • The effect on the living conditions on both the current occupants of [address] and the future occupants of the proposed dwelling, with particular regard to privacy.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Whilst the junction of the access with the public highway may have been acceptable for low levels of use, a point is reached where the risk to highway safety is no longer acceptable. In my judgement, this proposal would increase the level of use above this safe point. Consequently, the arrangements set out by the appellant in regard to the provision of passing places would not overcome the potential additional risks to highway safety.
Paragraph 16 · Source page 3
6 March 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as: Create a new dropped curb for vehicle access & new block paving to driveway.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the appeal development on the character and appearance of the area and on highway safety.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Paragraph 115(b) of the Framework requires development to provide safe and suitable access to a site for all users. It also states at paragraph 116 that if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, development should be refused.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2